November - Vehicle Mass Reduction Roadmap Study 2025-2035 - Carla Bailo Shashank Modi - Center for ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Vehicle Mass Reduction
Roadmap Study 2025-2035
Carla Bailo
Shashank Modi
Michael Schultz
Terni Fiorelli
Brett Smith
Nicklaus Snell
November
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2018
2020
1
Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................................... 4 Background and Objective ............................................................................................................................ 6 Research Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Estimating Baseline Material Technology ..................................................................................................... 7 Automaker Interview Summary .................................................................................................................. 10 Opportunities for Steel ............................................................................................................................... 13 Opportunities for Aluminum....................................................................................................................... 14 Opportunities for Polymer Composites ...................................................................................................... 15 Opportunities for Magnesium .................................................................................................................... 16 Material Mass Reduction Percentages used in this Study .......................................................................... 17 Secondary Mass Reduction ......................................................................................................................... 17 Understanding the Cost of Lightweighting ................................................................................................. 18 Cost of Materials and Manufacturing ......................................................................................................... 18 Factors Affecting Automaker Lightweighting Targets ................................................................................ 25 Method for Estimating Material Distribution ............................................................................................. 26 Material Roadmap and Incremental Cost ($/kg) – Unibody Vehicles......................................................... 28 Material Roadmap and Incremental Cost ($/kg) – Body-on-Frame Vehicles ............................................. 33 Real-World Challenges ................................................................................................................................ 37 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 39 Appendix A: Curb Weight and Footprint Comparison ................................................................................ 43 © CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 2
List of Figures Figure 1: Generic Mass-Reduction Cost Curve............................................................................................ 18 Figure 2: Hot-Rolled Steel Price Trend ........................................................................................................ 19 Figure 3: Aluminum Price Trend ................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 4: Factors affecting CF and CFRP Cost or Price ................................................................................ 21 Figure 5: 2020 Baseline vehicle material distribution- Unibody ................................................................. 27 Figure 6: 2020 Baseline vehicle material distribution - Body-on-Frame .................................................... 27 Figure 7: Material Penetration for each Scenario - Unibody Vehicles........................................................ 29 Figure 8: Technology Pathway and Relative Cost for Unibody Cars and SUVs ........................................... 31 Figure 9: Technology Pathway and Relative Cost for Body-on-Frame Vehicles ......................................... 36 List of Tables Table 1: Vehicles studied for baseline material analysis .............................................................................. 7 Table 2: Materials in MY2020 versus MY2016.............................................................................................. 8 Table 3: Curb weight and Footprint Comparison: current model year 2020 vs previous model year 2016 9 Table 4: Drivers that will govern the importance of ligthweighting in the 2025-2035 timeframe ............ 10 Table 5: Mass Reduction Potential of Materials ......................................................................................... 17 Table 6: Mass Reduction percentages of each material used for this project ........................................... 17 Table 7: High and Low-Cost Scenarios for Materials 2025-2035 ................................................................ 23 Table 8: Manufacturing cost and learning .................................................................................................. 24 Table 9: Manufacturing Cost with Learning ($/kg) for key years ............................................................... 24 Table 10: LOW Total Cost $/kg range (material + processing) ................................................................... 24 Table 11: HIGH Total Cost $/kg range (material + processing) ................................................................... 25 Table 12: High and Low Definitions for Selected Variables ........................................................................ 26 Table 13: Expected Variable Value for Select Years.................................................................................... 26 Table 14: Scenarios for Unibody Vehicles ................................................................................................... 28 Table 15: Cost and Mass Reduction Analysis for Unibody Vehicle Scenarios............................................. 30 Table 16: Scenarios for Body-on-Frame vehicles ........................................................................................ 33 Table 17: Cost and Mass Reduction Analysis for Body-on-Frame Vehicle Scenarios ................................. 35 © CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 3
Glossary
Steel Grades
Ultimate Tensile
Category Acronym Description
Strength (MPa) Range
Low Strength (LSS) Mild Mild Steel Less than 270
IF Intersitial Free 410-420
High Strength Steels (HSS) BH Bake Hardenable 340-400
HSLA High-Strength Low Alloy 450-780
DP Dual Phase 440-1270
Advanced High Strength FB Ferritic-bainitic (SF - stretch flangeable) 450-600
Steels (AHSS) CP Complex Phase 800-1470
MS Martensitic 1200-1500
TRIP Transformation-induced plasticity 600-980
Ultra High Strength Steels
HF Hot-formed (boron) 480-1900
(UHSS)
TWIP Twinning-induced plasticity 900-1200
Aluminum Grades
Category Series Acronym
Commercially Pure Aluminum 1xxx Al
Heat-Treatable Alloys 2xxx , 6xxx , 7xxx Al
Non Heat-Treatable Alloys 3xxx , 4xxx , 5xxx Al
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 4Acknowledgments
The authors of this report thank the industry experts from various companies that provided data for this
research. Our special thanks to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM)
Committee to entrust CAR to conduct this research.
Companies which contributed data to this study include:
• American Chemistry Council • Ford Motor Company
• American Iron and Steel Institute • General Motors
• ArcelorMittal • Hexion
• Automotive Aluminum Advisors • Nissan
• BASF • Novelis
• Ducker Worldwide • The Aluminum Association
• Fiat Chrysler Automobiles • U.S. Steel
Sincerely
Bailo, Modi, Schultz, Fiorelli, Smith, Snell
For citations and reference to this publication, please use the following:
Bailo, C., Modi, S., Schultz, M., Fiorelli, T., Smith, B., & Snell, N. (2020). (publication). Vehicle
Mass Reduction Roadmap Study 2025-2035. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Automotive Research.
3005 Boardwalk, Suite 200
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
www.cargroup.org
CAR's mission is to conduct independent research and analysis to educate, inform and advise
stakeholders, policymakers, and the general public on critical issues facing the automotive
industry, and the industry's impact on the U.S. economy and society.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 5Background and Objective
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) Committee on Assessment of
Technologies for Improving Fuel Economy of Light-Duty Vehicles, Phase 3 is tasked by The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with providing estimates of the potential cost, fuel
economy improvements, and barriers to deployment of technologies for improving fuel economy in
2025-2035 light-duty vehicles. The National Academies Committee is currently investigating the state of
vehicle mass reduction technology readiness and the impact of mass reduction on fuel economy while
maintaining vehicle performance and safety requirements.
The reduction of in-use GHG emissions from light-duty passenger vehicles presents a vital opportunity to
minimize motor vehicles' environmental impact. Vehicle mass reduction is one pathway to reduce
vehicle emissions while improving performance. Considerable resources have been expended by the
regulators trying to estimate the lowest cost feasible for the mass reduction of light-duty vehicles.
Detailed teardown and cost studies performed by reputable engineering firms have aggressively
approached lightweighting on a handful of vehicles, producing several innovative ideas. However,
automakers respond by pointing out that there are risks, business constraints, and customer
requirements that these studies do not address. Further, extrapolating the results from one or a few
teardown studies to over 1,000 vehicle models for sale in the U.S. market is inappropriate. The task of
assessing mass reduction trends is critical and challenging.
The Center for Automotive Research (CAR) was hired under contract by NASEM to study vehicle mass
reduction for model years 2025-2035. Over the past decade, CAR has been a leader in light-duty vehicle
mass reduction research. CAR has done work on assessing the real-world barriers to implementing mass
reduction technologies (J. Baron, 2016). CAR also worked with nine global vehicle manufacturers to
examine material trends over the next decade (Baron & Modi, 2016). The project still stands as one of
the most cooperative and thorough analyses done to date. CAR collected data on 42 vehicles from 4
segments representing 50 percent of the U.S. light-duty fleet. Most recently, CAR has published a
Materials and Manufacturing Technology Roadmap (Modi & Vadhavkar, 2019) that examined the likely
penetration of materials for the automotive body-in-white.
The objective of this Study is as below:
• Describe the available opportunities for shifts in vehicle body-in-white and closure material
application in vehicle model years (MY) 2025-2035.
• Estimate mass-reduction opportunity by each segment in MY2025, MY2030, MY2035, keeping in
mind technology readiness, automaker development plans, SME opinion, and CAFE/GHG
regulations.
• Based on mass reduction opportunities, create scenarios for possible material penetration by
each vehicle type.
• Use the scenarios to estimate the incremental costs for mass reduction opportunities.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 6Research Approach
The project's research relies on CAR material and manufacturing roadmaps, publications by other
organizations, and information collected through several automaker and supplier interviews. Data
sources include, but are not limited to:
• Vehicle repair manuals
• Conference presentations
• NHTSA and EPA sponsored vehicle lighweighting studies
• SAFE Rule: Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
• Automaker and supplier interviews
The research focuses on vehicle body-in-white and closures for primary mass reduction opportunities.
Powertrain mass-reduction is considered only for calculating mass decompounding opportunities. The
baseline for this project is the U.S. MY2020 light-duty vehicle fleet.
Estimating Baseline Material Technology
The baseline model year for this research is 2020. There are hundreds of different vehicles (nameplates)
in the U.S. fleet. Studying the material technology of every vehicle is not practical. Moreover, material
information is not readily available in public databases. Therefore, CAR researchers decided to
investigate the top-selling vehicles in the U.S. fleet. Table 1 lists the vehicles studied to establish the
baseline material technology. The segments are the same as defined by NHTSA.1 These 33 vehicles
represent greater than 50 percent of the U.S. vehicle sales in 2019. This reports refer to these vehicles
as the baseline fleet.
Table 1: Vehicles studied for baseline material analysis
Small Car Mid-Size Car Small SUV Mid-Size SUV Pickup
Honda Civic Ford Fusion Jeep Wrangler Traverse Silverado
Honda Accord Tesla Model 3 Chevy Equinox Pacifica Ram Pickup
Hyundai Elantra Ford Escape Explorer F Series
Nissan Altima Edge Pilot Sierra
Nissan Sentra CR-V Grand Cherokee Tacoma
Toyota Camry Tucson Highlander
Toyota Corolla Cherokee
Compass
CX-5
Rogue
Outback
Forester
Rav4
1
NHTSA further categorizes vehicles in mass market and performance for each segment.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 7Analysis of the baseline fleet (the 33 vehicles) revealed that 73 percent of the vehicles were redesigned
(generation change) after MY2016. According to vehicle production forecasts by IHS Markit Inc., 40
percent of the baseline fleet vehicles are expected to be redesigned by MY2025.
CAR researchers referred to the vehicle repair manuals to study the materials used in the baseline fleet.
The repair manuals are published for the collision repair shops to inform them about the vehicles'
materials used in the critical structural components. Most repair manuals contain information on safety-
critical body-in-white (BIW) and closure parts. In a 2016 CAR study (Baron & Modi, 2016), the
researchers identified key components essential to understand mass-reduction (M.R.) initiatives. The
research team studied the materials used in these components for the baseline fleet vehicles (using
repair manuals). Table 2 shows the materials used in the MY2020 baseline fleet versus the materials
identified for the same components for the five percent mass-reduction level in the 2016 CAR study.2
Table 2: Materials in MY2020 versus MY2016
Components MY2020 baseline fleet 2016 study: 5% M.R. level
Fender BH Steel and Aluminum (50:50) HSS/BH Steel
A-pillar UHSS 1500 Hot Formed UHSS HF Steel
Floor HSS 440-590 with UHSS Reinforce. Mild with AHSS
Front Bumper Structure Mostly Aluminum with some Steel Aluminum
Roof Panel Mild/B.H. Steel Mild Steel
Door Outer LSS And Aluminum B.H. Steel and Aluminum
Hood 95% Aluminum Aluminum
Decklid LSS, Al, Mag, Comp. B.H. Steel and Aluminum
Engine Cradle/Front frame LSS 400-600 HSLA
Steering Knuckle HSS 400-500 And Aluminum Aluminum
IP Beam HSS And Two Magnesium AHSS
Source: CAR Research, Vehicle repair manuals
Material analysis suggests that the MY2020 fleet has advanced material technologies that should result
in around five percent lighter curb weight than the MY2016 baseline. However, this does not tell the
entire story. CAR researchers compared the actual curb weights and footprints of the MY2020 to the
MY2016 vehicles (see Appendix A). As shown in Table 3, the finding confirms that the real world curb
weight reduction is much lower than five percent. Also, the average footprint has increased for all
vehicle segments.
2
The 2016 study asked automakers the material roadmap (for key components) for 5%, 10%, and 15% target curb
weight reduction over the 2016 fleet.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 8Table 3: Curb weight and Footprint Comparison: current model year 2020 vs previous model year 2016 3
SmallCar SmallSUV MidSUV Pickup
Avg. Curb Weight Decrease 0% 2% 1% 4%
Avg. Footprint Increase 2% 1% 4% 6%
Unibody Body on Frame
Avg. Curb Weight Decrease 1% 3%
Avg. Footprint Increase 2% 6%
Source: CAR Research
The real-world mass reduction achievements do NOT match the mass reduction potential of the
material technologies already implemented in the baseline MY2020 fleet. CAR research found two
primary reasons for this discrepancy:
Q1. Mass Add-Back: automakers often need to add weight to improve vehicles' safety, performance,
and customer expectations. Mass for safety is required for crashworthiness and electronic
devices such as cameras, sensors, computers, etc. Mass for performance might be added for
attributes such as improvements in stiffness, the quietness of the ride, lowering the center of
gravity, equalizing the load distribution, unsprung mass reduction, etc. Automakers also add
mass to satisfy customer demand for better comfort. In the 2016 CAR study, automakers
indicated that the total mass add-back (safety plus performance) expected for cars today
averaged 4.9 percent for cars and 4.6 percent for light-duty trucks.
Q2. Footprint Increase: vehicles, in general, have increased in size because of customer demands.
The baseline fleet has a 2-6 percent larger footprint than the MY2016 fleet. This increase takes
away the real-world curb weight reduction.
Therefore, we conclude that the MY2020 baseline fleet has advanced material technology but is not
significantly lighter than the MY2016 fleet.
3
Analysis includes only the top selling baseline fleet vehicles (33 nameplates). Analysis of the entire US fleet might
produce different results. MidCar segment has only two vehicles in top selling 1)Ford Fusion 2)Tesla Model 3. Ford
Fusion footprint increased by 6% and mass increased by 4%. Tesla Model 3 has no previous generation for
comparison.
To avoid model year and production year confusion, the comparisons were made for two model years before and
after the latest generation change model year. For example,
Ford F150 redesign in MY2015
MR = (MY2013 CW) – (MY2017 CW),
MR is positive if the vehicle got lighter.
Jeep Cherokee redesign in MY2020
Delta footprint = (MY2020 CW) – (MY2018 CW) [since 2022 does not exist)
Footprint is positive if the vehicle got bigger.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 9Automaker Interview Summary
CAR researchers interviewed several automakers to understand future mass-reduction opportunities.
Below are the questions and key points from the conversations.
Q1. Is lightweighting an important decision factor for material selection in MY2025-2035 vehicles?
What factors will affect its increase or decrease in importance?
Almost all interviewees said lightweighting would be an essential factor for material selection in
MY2025-2035 vehicles. However, the importance will depend on multiple variables such as cost, system
integration, supply base/chain, sustainability, vehicle program targets and timing, and production
volume. Vehicle performance requirements must be met regardless of lightweighting importance.
Table 4 lists positive, negative, and uncertain drivers that will govern lightweighting's importance in the
2025-2035 timeframe.
Table 4: Drivers that will govern the importance of ligthweighting in the 2025-2035 timeframe
Positive Drivers Negative Drivers Uncertain
•Increase in on-board •Significant increase in •CAFE and GHG regulations
technology (customer battery energy density and •A potential shift in the
facing, sensors, control reduction in battery cost regulatory narrative
modules, etc.) •Significant improvements in towards full life vehicle
•Increase of vehicle powertrain technology for emissions
electrification conventional ICE
•Vehicle redesign cycles •Investments shifting
•Automaker sustainability towards ADAS
targets
•Improvements in dissimilar
material joining
Source: CAR Research
Q2. Are the criteria for lightweighting different for battery electric vehicles than internal
combustion vehicles? Will increases in energy density and battery cost reduction alter the
selection criterion for lightweighting of the electric vehicles?
Most respondents said that the primary purpose of mass-reduction for fossil fuel vehicles is controlling
fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions. For electric vehicles, the primary goal is to increase the
range. However, the material strategies for lightweighting may not differ much for BEVs versus ICE once
batteries are lightweight and inexpensive.
Both battery energy density and battery costs are critical decision factors in the mass-reduction targets
and materials qualification criterias to achieve the targets. Energy density, if it drives a lighter battery
pack (as opposed to, for example, driving up consumer range expectations), will lower the
lightweighting targets. Also, as the cost of battery storage decreases, the value of lightweighting
decreases because the automakers can put a less expensive, bigger battery to match the range,
compared to more expensive lightweighting. An opposing argument is that lower battery costs may free
up material cost budgets to spend on lightweighting. However, respondents indicate that the former
scenario is more likely than the latter. Thus, CAR researchers assume that higher battery energy density
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 10and lower battery cost will lower lightweighting targets and automakers' appetite to pay for material
technology for this analysis.
Q3. What are the critical material and manufacturing technologies on which the committee should
focus its attention for MY2025-2035? Comment on cost, supply chain, design optimization,
capital investment, after-sales service, etc.
An overwhelming response to this question was that the committee should focus on low cost, high
volume material, and manufacturing technologies. The primary reason for such a response is that the
automotive industry is very cost-sensitive and produces large volumes of vehicles. As automakers are
stressed to develop many new technologies based on global demand, there are limited resources to
develop unless the production volume is large. New-age technologies frequently mentioned in the
interviews include:
Materials Systems: novel low-cost, high-performance composite sandwich construction with
honeycomb cores, next-generation low-cost carbon fibers, 7xxx series aluminum, gen-3 steels,
graphene, and nano-based composites.
Manufacturing: significantly lower-cost high-volume fully-automated polymeric composite
manufacturing methods (e.g., HP-RTM, Spray Transfer Molding (STM), straight and curved pultrusion,
toolless manufacturing, and high-volume additive manufacturing.
Enablers: multi-material (dissimilar material) joining for assembly and disassembly, and predictive
computational and design optimization tools.
CAR research found ongoing research and development efforts in the technologies mentioned above.
The timeline for high-volume commercial production varies significantly by technology, and the
uncertainty is high.
Since most automakers are global companies with standard vehicle platforms that share parts, the
supply chain is critical in the material selection decision process. Experts admitted that the supply base
is limited for carbon fiber and natural fibers.
Q4. How important is sustainability in material qualification? What role does life cycle assessment
(LCA) play in material qualification?
All automakers and suppliers said that sustainability is becoming increasingly important in their
companies. Many automakers have specific sustainability goals, the progress of which they report
annually to the investors. Suppliers are getting a greater push from the automakers to have a more
sustainable supply chain. Life cycle analysis (LCA) was also frequently mentioned in the interviews. LCA is
an important tool for selecting sustainable materials; However, quantifiable metrics and long-term
targets are not well defined. Also, there is a lack of standardization for LCA in the automotive industry.
Q5. With regard to lightweighting, what is fundamentally important for the NAS committee to
understand and consider when writing the report?
Automakers said that the market forces value per kilogram, as driven by the consumers (price point) and
regulatory requirements (additional heavy content). It is paramount for the committee to understand
the dollar value consumers put on higher performance, higher range, and more features. Furthermore,
the effects of the market forces on the amount of lightweighting automakers can do.
Another factor is manufacturing costs, especially for complex designs (geometry and/or materials).
Manufacturing costs can be higher than material costs. In such a situation, focusing on low-cost raw
materials does not significantly impact the overall cost (or piece cost). Therefore, because of the
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 11manufacturing process (not material costs), a lightweighting concept or lightweighting innovation may
not be considered until the industry develops a lower-cost manufacturing method.
Q6. What vehicle systems do you target for lightweighting?
CAR researchers found that closures are the top priority because they are mostly large, flat panels which
can be a bolt-on to the body-in-white. The body-in-white (BIW) is the second priority as it adds
significant weight to the vehicle. Next in line is unsprung mass, interior components, and powertrain.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 12Opportunities for Steel
Steel is a known commodity and has been utilized and continues to be optimized. Therefore,
automakers are familiar with the material for high-volume production. With economies of scale and a
millennium of efficiency improvements, steel costs are lower than other materials. The steel industry is
continuously improving and launching better grades of steel. Push for higher lightweighting targets will
take few vehicle parts away from steel, but steel will remain a dominant material for BIW at least till
2035 for mass-market vehicles.
Current Advantage
•Broad UTS range: 200 Mpa to 2000 Mpa in the last 20 years
•Low Cost
•Reasonable weight savings using UHSS, Gen-3
•Familiarity
•Global supply chain
Future Opportunities
•Steel industry is focusing on improving formability while increasing strength
• All steel makers are actively updating infrastructure to lower their carbon footprint.
Example: Nucor, Big River and others moving heavily to EAF (electric arc furnaces)
•Significant increase in battery energy density and reduction in battery cost might drive
automakers to reassess their priorities for lightweighting for shifting investments to
other technologies like ADAS.
•Expected to be 50%-55% of the BIW+closures
Negatives
•Aluminum and polymer composites provide 30%-60% MR and actively investing in
cost reduction.
•Mass add-back due to autonomous technology can force automakers to
lightweight further by switching to other materials.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 13Opportunities for Aluminum
Aluminum is the prime competitor of steel. It provides a 35-40 percent mass reduction over lower grade
steels. Like steel, aluminum is a known commodity with a well-established global supply chain. CAR
research found aluminum to become a prime material for use in closures and outer body panels.
Aluminum will increase from the current 10-13 percent to 20-22 percent of the BIW and closures
subsystem.
Current Advantage
•Aluminum provides 35-40% mass reduction over mild steel.
•Aluminum content has increased from 200/lbs per vehicles in 2000 to over 400
lbs/vehicles in 2020. This growth is driven by use of aluminum in hoods and other
closures
•Aluminum claims to be the most recycled material in the world, 70-80%
•Global supply chain
Future Opportunities
•Doors and other bolt-on components will continue to be an opportunity for
Aluminum.
•Industry is working on new 6xxx and 7xxx grades (gen-2 and gen-3)
•Continuous casting has potential to reduce conversion cost of aluminum sheet
products.
•Few premium brands such as Audi, Jaguar prefer aluminum
•Expected to be 20-25% of the BIW+closures
Negatives
•The manufacturing plant is totally disrupted by AL alloys and the usage of
adhesives. This really explodes the cost, so high volume, totally new platform
vehicles are the best applications.
•BIW shift to aluminum has not picked up after Ford F-series trucks and Tesla
Model S. In-fact, other automakers have chosen a AHSS strategy for high-volume
vehicles (for example, Chevy Silverado, Tesla Model 3).
•Significant increase in battery density and shift of investment to ADAS can limit
lightweighting initiatives
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 14Opportunities for Polymer Composites
Polymer composites offer significant lightweighting over steel and aluminum. They also simplify the
design and reduce the number of parts. Polymers will play a significant role in achieving higher
lightweighting requirements. For premium, performance-driven vehicles, they might be a dominant
material. Since polymer composites are application-specific and not a commodity product, the cost will
remain a challenge for high-volume production. With the increasing push towards sustainability,
recyclability and reusability of polymers also remain a concern. Interviews with experts reveal that
suppliers are diligently working to find sustainable plastics and polymer composites.
Current Advantage
•Polymer composites like CFRP, GFRP, SMC offer potential for 60-70%
lightweighting
•Part consolidation and low tooling cost lowers overall cost.
Future Opportunities
•Opportunities in liftgate, door inner, fender, roof panel, front bulkhead, floor
reinforcement, A/B pillar reinforcement, truck bed, seats
•Expected to be 8-12% of the BIW+Closures
Negatives
•In terms of $/lbs, polymer composites will remain expensive over metals.
•Major barriers
•High raw material cost
•Different tooling than metals
•Paint shop for BIW applications
•Joining
•Design
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 15Opportunities for Magnesium
Magnesium is at par with polymer composites in mass reduction opportunities. However, magnesium
suffers from galvanic corrosion issues when used with other materials, and the supply chain is not well
established. Also, there are issues with forming and brittleness in magnesium parts. Therefore,
magnesium will have limited use in the non-exposed parts of BIW and closures.
Current Advantage
•Magnesium provides 60-70% mass reduction over mild steel.
Future Opportunities
•Limited opportunities in vehicle front end components and powertrain castings
•Expected to be 3-6% of the BIW+closures
Negatives
•Use of magnesium remains low (1%) and is limited to inner body parts. Examples,
liftgate inner, IP beam, seats
•Major barriers:
•High cost and limited supply chain
•Low formability
•Corrosion issues
•Joining
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 16Material Mass Reduction Percentages used in this Study The weight reduction opportunity for materials depends on the design of the part and the manufacturing processes. However, there is a general understanding of the expected range of mass reduction each material can provide. Table 5 from the U.S. Department of Energy lists the range of mass-reduction estimates for each material. Table 5: Mass Reduction Potential of Materials Lightweight Material Mass Reduction Opportunity Magnesium 30-70% Carbon fiber composites 50-70% Aluminum and Al matrix composites 30-60% Titanium 40-55% Glass fiber composites 25-35% Advanced high strength steel 15-25% High strength steel 10-28% Source: U.S. Department of Energy Based on the interviews conducted for this project and the literature survey, the authors decided to use the mass reduction percentages listed in Table 6. Table 6: Mass Reduction percentages of each material use d for this project Material MR% (relative to mild steel) AHSS 10% UHSS 25% Aluminum 45% Magnesium 50% Polymer Composite 60% Source: CAR Research Secondary Mass Reduction The 2015 NASEM report suggested that a powertrain downsizing opportunity exists when the glider mass is lightweighted by at least 10 percent (Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles, 2015). The committee found that a reduced mass vehicle would allow an additional 40 percent of the primary mass removed from cars (unibody) and an additional 25 percent of the primary mass removed for trucks (body-on-frame). Automakers' interviews confirmed the NASEM committee findings. Therefore, we have used the same approach to calculate secondary mass reduction opportunities in this report. © CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 17
Understanding the Cost of Lightweighting
The cost of lightweighting may seem like a simple material replacement cost. However, many factors
influence the real-world lightweighting cost, including part complexity, part size, manufacturing process,
annual volume, capital investment, additional labor, factory location, and reengineering effort.
Moreover, mass add-back takes away a large portion of the mass-reduction achieved. Figure 1 shows a
generic mass-reduction cost curve for an automaker. Please note:
• The model year 2020 baseline vehicle has advanced material technology and, therefore, already
ahead in the curve.
• There is a distribution of material technology in the U.S. fleet with vehicles more and less
advanced than the average vehicle.
• Mass reduction becomes expensive with real-world constraints (curve shifts upwards).
• Mass add-back reduces the actual curb weight reduction even after implementing lightweight
material technology.
Figure 1: Generic Mass-Reduction Cost Curve
Source: CAR Research
Cost of Materials and Manufacturing
For understanding the cost of lightweighting, it is vital to understand the raw material and
manufacturing costs. Vehicle teardown studies sponsored by the NHTSA and EPA have used detailed
cost models to account for raw material, equipment, labor, energy, scrap, engineering, overhead, etc.
Creating such a model is out-of-scope of this project. To arrive at a reasonable range of estimates for
different levels of mass-reduction, CAR researchers performed an extensive literature survey and
interviewed material suppliers to understand the raw material and manufacturing costs.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 18Raw Material Prices
Below is the discussion on individual raw material prices. The information presented below refers to
multiple sources. Please refer to the bibliography for citations.
Statistical forecasting models' performance degrades rapidly as the forecast horizon expands. A review
of the commodity price forecasting literature indicates that forecasts are, at best, accurate to a time
horizon of three months. Given a fifteen-year forecast horizon, statistical methods are inappropriate.
Thus, we rely on long-term historical patterns in the data for steel and aluminum prices.
Steel Prices
For steels, long-run inflation-adjusted (using the implicit GDP deflator, base year 2019) prices are
relatively constant, with deviations driven by demand shocks and geopolitical events (collapse of the
USSR, the industrialization of China). Given this stability of real prices, we assume steel will remain at
roughly its long-term real price throughout the forecast period. The United States Geological Survey
(USGS) historical data on steel prices, which uses hot-rolled special bar quality carbon steel as its
benchmark, has averaged $0.85 per kg since the late 1950s. At current cost deltas across steel grades,
this implies a long-run, inflation-adjusted average price between $0.70 and $0.75 per kg for cold-rolled
mild steel.
Discussion with industry participants and available data indicate that cold-rolled steel is almost always
more expensive than hot-rolled special bar quality (SBQ). The $0.70 per kg figure is definitively a lower
bound and may result from idiosyncrasies in the limited data available for translating the USGS SBQ data
to cold-rolled prices. To account for uncertainties, we use a range of $0.70-$1.00 per kg for cold-rolled
mild steel.
Figure 2: Hot-Rolled Steel Price Trend
USGS Hot-Rolled SBQ Steel
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1929
1933
1937
1941
1945
1949
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
Nominal Price per Metric Ton Real Price per Metric Ton Average 1957-2019
Source: United States Geological Survey
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 19Aluminum Prices
Inflation-adjusted aluminum prices are less stable than steel prices, with a pronounced and rapid decline
in the pre-WWII period. Since 1990, real prices for aluminum ingot have averaged and remained
relatively steady near $2.44 per kg. To reflect uncertainty, we report a high and low around this figure,
based upon the price volatility since 1990. Our low-cost aluminum scenario sees the real price per kg at
$2.135, while the high real price scenario indicates prices at $2.745 per kg.
Figure 3: Aluminum Price Trend
USGS Aluminum Ingot
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1929
1933
1937
1941
1945
1949
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
Nominal Price per Metric Ton Real Price per Metric Ton
Average 1945-1989 Average 1990-2019
Source: United States Geological Survey
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 20Carbon Fiber Prices
Little information is available for the cost of carbon fiber (C.F.), whether C.F. itself or for carbon fiber
composites (CFC). Those documents and reports that are available are inconsistent as to materials
discussed and often do not clearly specify what is being referenced.4 As baselines are inconsistent and
seldom fully defined, we focus on each document's anticipated percent change from its own baseline.
Overall, documents discussing cost-reduction pathways for C.F. and CFC expect that the development of
alternative precursors will lower the cost of approximately 35 percent for CFC. Process improvements
and fully-scaled production are anticipated to each provide a further 20 percent cost reduction. These
cost reductions are multiplicative, not additive. The expected combined effect of full-scale production
wholly implemented process improvements, and an alternative precursor is approximately a 50 percent
cost reduction for CFC.
Figure 4: Factors affecting CF and CFRP Cost or Price
Anticipated Reduction in CF Cost or Price from Precursor, Scale, and Process Improvements
PAN Precursor, Full-Scale CF Production
Polyethylene Precursor
Textile Precursor
PAN Precursor, Full-Scale CF Production, Process Improvements
Lignin Precursor, Full-Scale CF Production
Textile Precursor, Full-Scale CF Production
Textile Precursor, Full-Scale CF Production, Process Improvements
Alternative Precursors, Process Improvements
Lignin Precursor, Full-Scale CF Production, Process Improvements
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4
Documents and reports are inconsistent with the materials discussed and often do not specify what is
being referenced. Critical information missing includes:
• Differing tow sizes (large tow size CF is significantly lower cost than low tow size CF)
• Inconsistent performance characteristics/material qualities
• Does "carbon fiber" refer to…
o Carbon Fiber (CF),
o Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer / Carbon Fiber Composite (CFRP/CFC), or
o A product manufactured from CFRP (e.g., CFRP-based door inner)?
• Are figures the direct cost of material manufacture or the price paid by a purchaser of the
material? CF price roughly = CF Production Cost x 1.45*
• As a result, even reports citing similar data and time periods provide meaningfully different cost
figures for CF, CFRP, and parts made from CFRP
• Quoted baseline costs/prices vary dramatically across sources, even for consistent materials,
e.g. 50k tow CF (roughly $12 - $24 / kg)
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 21Anticipated Reduction in CFRP Cost or Price
Textile Precursor, Full-Scale CF Production
Lignin Precursor
Alternative Precursor and Resin, Process Improvements
100% of Feedstock is Recycled Material
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: Warren, 2011; Ennis et al., 2019; Bregar, 2014; Vehicles Technology Office, 2013; Heuss et al., 2012
Our future cost scenarios for CFC follow the same technology pathway, but at different time horizons.
The low-cost CFC scenario assumes that, by 2025, sufficient scale and/or sufficient process
improvements will be implemented to achieve a 20 percent reduction in CFC cost. Further
improvements will occur sufficient for an additional 20 percent cost reduction by 2030, and an
alternative precursor will be available and in-use by 2035. In the high-cost scenario, we did not consider
any improvements to scale or process until 2030, and the experts do not expect an alternate precursor
until after 2035.
Available information on C.F. and CFC costs and prices suggest that per kg nominal costs have remained
roughly constant over the past decade; thus, real costs have fallen. We assume this will continue, and
the effects of general inflation will further reduce CFC's real cost throughout the 15-year forecast
horizon.
Given the full range of baseline cost estimates and anticipated cost reduction pathways, the range of
costs per kg for C.F. and CFRP achievable after full implementation of fully-scaled production, process
improvements, and alternate precursors are:
• CF: $5 – 11 per kg (typical $7 per kg)
• CFC: $9 – 15 per kg (typical $12 per kg)
These figures do not incorporate general inflation. Incorporating inflation and assuming all cost
reduction possibilities are implemented by 2035, CAR estimates CFRP prices could be $8.74 in 2035.
Magnesium Prices
Magnesium is the eighth-most abundant element in the earth's crust, but raw magnesium's price
instability inhibits broader use. The magnesium price is impacted by the demand for aluminum,
titanium, and steel because magnesium is used to make these metals. The Platts Metals Week U.S. spot
Western magnesium price range was $2.10 to $2.20 per pound ($4.62 to $4.85 per kg) throughout the
entire year for an annual average price of $2.15 per pound in 2017, unchanged from the average price
since the beginning of 2014. Global consumption of magnesium is expected to increase by a compound
annual growth rate of about five percent per year from 2017 through 2027 (2017 Minerals Yearbook,
2017). The price of magnesium is unstable and depends on geopolitical factors. For this research, we
have assumed magnesium prices to reduce going forward.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 22Material Costs used for this research
For this analysis, CAR researchers created high and low-cost scenarios for 2025-2035. Based on the
research described above, steel prices are kept constant. Aluminum, CFRP, and Magnesium costs are
assumed to decrease over the years. Table 7 shows the cost in dollars per kilogram for each material.
Table 7: High and Low-Cost Scenarios for Materials 2025-2035
LOW Material Cost $/kg range
Material 2020 2025 2030 2035
Mild 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
HSS 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
AHSS 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
UHSS 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
Al 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13
Mag 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00
CFRP 24.00 19.71 16.41 8.74
HIGH Material Cost $/kg range
Material 2020 2025 2030 2035
Mild 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
HSS 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13
AHSS 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40
UHSS 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45
Al 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74
Mag 4.80 4.30 4.00 3.50
CFRP 24.00 24.00 19.71 16.41
Source: CAR Research
Manufacturing Cost
Manufacturing cost is more difficult to estimate since it depends on many factors such as part
complexity, part size, manufacturing process, the volume of production, and manufacturer's "tribal"
knowledge. CAR researchers interviewed material suppliers and consortiums to understand the
manufacturing cost part of the total part cost. Most respondents gave CAR a range of estimates. To
control the complexity of manufacturing cost, we used averages of the estimates provided to CAR.
In a 2016 CAR study (Baron & Modi, 2016), the authors estimated manufacturing cost reduction due to
time and volume-based learning for different materials5. These learning percentages are used in this
analysis to estimate manufacturing cost reduction through 2035. See Table 8 and Table 9.
5
There are two different types of learning curves:
Time-Based – Over time, plant operations adapt to using new material and new techniques for processing and
handling of these materials. This enables the procedure to increase process speed and efficiency, resulting in lower
overall cost.
Volume-Based – Higher volume bring opportunities for economies of scale. It can lead to a reduction in the cost of
production per part. Higher volume demands drive more rigorous processing, which can create additional
opportunities to improve overall process times.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 23Table 8: Manufacturing cost and learning
Manufacturing cost as Manufacturing cost
Material
part of total cost % % Reduction/ year (learning)
Mild 47% 0.00%
HSS 41% 0.00%
AHSS 41% 0.56%
UHSS (HF) 41% 0.56%
AL 40% 1.26%
Mag 24% 0.88%
Comp 58% 2.36%
Source: CAR Research
Table 9: Manufacturing Cost with Learning ($/kg) for key years
Material 2020 2025 2030 2035
Mild 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
HSS 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68
AHSS 0.87 0.84 0.82 0.80
UHSS 0.90 0.88 0.85 0.83
Al 1.63 1.53 1.43 1.34
Mag 1.47 1.40 1.34 1.29
Comp 33.14 29.41 26.10 23.16
Source: CAR Research
Total Cost
To calculate the total cost for material changes, the team added the low and high material costs and
each material's manufacturing cost. This exercise resulted in Table 10 and Table 11.
Table 10: LOW Total Cost $/kg range (material + processing)
Material 2020 2025 2030 2035
Mild 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45
HSS 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51
AHSS 1.97 1.94 1.92 1.90
UHSS 2.05 2.03 2.00 1.98
Al 3.76 3.66 3.57 3.48
Mag 5.97 5.40 4.84 4.29
Comp 57.14 49.13 42.51 31.90
Source: CAR Research
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 24Table 11: HIGH Total Cost $/kg range (material + processing)
Material 2020 2025 2030 2035
Mild 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75
HSS 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81
AHSS 2.27 2.24 2.22 2.20
UHSS 2.35 2.33 2.30 2.28
Al 4.37 4.27 4.18 4.09
Mag 6.27 5.70 5.34 4.79
Comp 57.14 53.41 45.81 39.57
Source: CAR Research
Factors Affecting Automaker Lightweighting Targets
Automaker interviews revealed that lightweighting targets would depend on four primary factors 1) fuel
economy and GHG regulations, 2) electrification volume, 3) battery cell energy density (weight of the
battery pack) and, 4) battery pack cost.
Fuel Economy and GHG regulations – the government regulations on fuel economy and greenhouse
gases affect automakers' mass-reduction target the most. Since most automakers sell in multiple
countries and have common vehicle platforms, worldwide government regulations affect material
strategies, not just the U.S. regulations.
An industry estimate is that a 10 percent reduction in vehicle's mass will produce approximately six to
seven percent reduction in fuel consumption for passenger cars and four to five percent reduction for
light-duty trucks (Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty
Vehicles, 2015). Therefore, lightweighting is an essential tool for automakers to achieve fleet fuel
economy targets.
Fuel economy and GHG regulations also affect electrification volume in the fleet. Since electric vehicles'
fuel economy (miles per gallon equivalent) is higher than internal combustion engines, automakers can
positively impact their CAFE targets by adding electric vehicles to the fleet. For this research, we have
assumed electrification volume as a proxy variable for fuel economy and GHG regulations.
Battery Cell Energy Density – Assuming similar performance, a battery-electric vehicle usually has a
higher curb weight than an internal combustion engine vehicle. The primary reason for the weight
difference is because the current batteries have lower energy density than gasoline. A vehicle with 10
gallons of onboard fuel (337 kWh energy) weighs an additional 27-30 kg, and the vehicle gradually drops
that weight as the fuel is combusted. On the other hand, a battery-electric vehicle's (BEV) battery pack
may contain 100 kWh of energy but weigh 385-544 kg. Automakers need a higher battery capacity to
meet range targets, which means adding significant weight to the vehicle with the current battery
density. Therefore, battery weight is an essential factor affecting lightweighting targets.
Battery Pack Cost – Achieving long-range is paramount for selling electric vehicles in high volume. The
range can be increased by adding battery capacity or reducing the weight of the vehicle. Since batteries
are expensive, adding battery capacity adds a high cost to the vehicle. However, if the battery pack's
cost decreases significantly, adding battery capacity becomes a cheaper option than lightweighting.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 25Automaker interview reveals that decreasing battery pack cost might negatively impact lightweighting
targets.
For each of the above variables, high and low values were defined (see Table 12). Table 13 shows the
expected values of the selected variables for the study years.
Table 12: High and Low Definitions for Selected Variables
Variables High Low
Electrification Volume
>25% BEV, 30-50% HybridsFigure 5: 2020 Baseline vehicle material distribution - Unibody
Cars and Unibody SUVs
2020 Baseline
2011 Accord
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Mild HSS AHSS UHSS Al Mag Comp
Figure 6: 2020 Baseline vehicle material distribution - Body-on-Frame
Pickups (Body-on-Frame)
2020 Baseline
2014 Silverado
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Mild HSS AHSS UHSS Al Mag Comp
Source: CAR Research
As discussed in the previous section, future vehicle material distribution will depend in part on
electrification volume, battery pack cost, and battery cell energy density. CAR researchers created
scenarios using the three variables for the study years 2020-2025, 2025-2030, and 2030-2035. For each
scenario, we created a material roadmap for unibody and body-on-frame vehicles. The following
sections will discuss these scenarios and corresponding material trends.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 27Material Roadmap and Incremental Cost ($/kg) – Unibody Vehicles
The updated Honda Accord was used to study material distribution scenarios for unibody vehicles.
Table 14 lists the unibody scenarios, expected material trends, and the expected year range. We have
based these estimates on the information collected through automaker interviews and literature
surveys, including the 2019 CAR technology roadmaps (Modi & Vadhavkar, 2019).
Table 14: Scenarios for Unibody Vehicles
Electrification
Volume Battery Battery
Scenario Expected Material Trend Expected Year
(CAFE/GHG Pack cost Density
proxy)
Baseline Body: HSS, AHSS, UHSS
Low High Low NA
2020 Closures: HSS, low Al
Scenario Body: HSS, AHSS, UHSS Mass Market
Low High Low
One Closures: HSS, Al 2025-2030
Scenario Body: Aluminum, AHSS, UHSS Premium Vehicles
High High Low
Two Closures: Al, comp, Mag 2025-2030
Scenario Body: AHSS, UHSS, low Al Mass Market
High Low Low
Three Closures: Al 2030-35
Scenario
High Low High AHSS intensive Low
Four
Source: CAR Research
Scenario one is where electrification volume remains low, and battery technology and cost remain at
2020 levels. In this case, automakers may continue to use predominantly high strength steel BIW and a
mix of steel and aluminum in the closures. This scenario may apply for the 2025-2030 timeframe.
In scenario two, electrification volume becomes high for performance and customer demand, but the
battery technology does not progress. In this case, automakers will likely have higher lightweighting
targets. They may use aluminum and high strength steel in BIW and a mix of aluminum, magnesium, and
polymer composites in the closures. Scenario two may apply for premium vehicles in the 2025-2030
timeframe.
In scenario three, the electrification volume is high, and the battery pack cost has come down
significantly to support mass-market electric vehicles. In this case, there is medium pressure for
lightweighting since automakers can increase vehicle range at lower costs by adding batteries. Thus, in
scenario three, automakers will likely use high strength steel and aluminum in BIW, and aluminum for
closures.
Scenario four is unlikely in the timeframe because experts do not expect battery density to fall into the
high-value range before 2035.
Based on the material trends for unibody vehicles listed in Table 14, CAR researchers upgraded the
materials for each of the BIW and closure component in a spreadsheet. The team upgraded each
component's material based on CAR's internal material databases and the research team's collective
engineering judgment. The spreadsheet automatically calculates the components' new weights using
the data from Table 6 when the materials are changed, thereby giving the expected mass reduction for
each scenario. The team repeated the exercise for the three unibody scenarios from Table 14.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 28Once the materials and weights of BIW and closure components were known, it became possible to
create a graph of each scenario's material distribution (see Figure 7).
Figure 7: Material Penetration for each Scenario - Unibody Vehicles
Material Penetration - Cars and Unibody SUVs
Scenario 3
Mass Market
2030-35
Scenario 2
Premium
2025-2030
Scenario 1
Mass Market
2025-2030
2020 Baseline
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
2020 Baseline Mass Market Premium Mass Market
2025-2030 2025-2030 2030-35
Mild 10% 0% 0% 0%
HSS 44% 35% 0% 18%
AHSS 40% 52% 22% 49%
UHSS 2% 7% 6% 15%
Al 4% 6% 65% 18%
Mag 0% 0% 3% 0%
Comp 0% 0% 4% 0%
Source: CAR Research
To understand the cost penalty for ligthweighting, the team multiplied each component mass with the
high and low cost of material change from Table 10 and Table 11 to understand the incremental cost
range. We then divided these costs by each scenario's mass reduction (in kilograms) to get to the dollars
per kilogram figure. Wherever the cost penalty range was too broad, we consulted with subject-matter-
experts to narrow down the range. Table 15 shows the cost penalty and expected mass reduction for
each of the unibody scenarios. Figure 8 is the expected material roadmap for unibody vehicles with cost
penalties.
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2020 29Table 15: Cost and Mass Reduction Analysis for Unibody Vehicle Scenarios
Cost
Electrification BIW+Closures Curb Weight
Battery penalty per
Volume Battery Weight Reduction
Scenario Pack kg of Expected Material Trend Expected Year
(CAFE/GHG Density Reduction (2020
cost weight
proxy) (2020 baseline) baseline)
saved
Body: HSS, AHSS, UHSS
Baseline Low High Low NA NA NA NA
Closures: HSS, low Al
Scenario $0.5- $1.5 Body: HSS, AHSS, UHSS Mass Market
Low High Low ~4% 1.0% - 1.5%
One CY: 2030 Closures: HSS, Al 2025-2030
$4.0 -$6.0 Body: Aluminum, AHSS, 12 - 14%
Scenario Premium Vehicles
High High Low UHSS ~37% (with
Two C.Y.: 2030 2025-2030
Closures: Al, CFRP, Mag secondary)
Scenario $1.5 - $3.5 Body: AHSS, UHSS, low Al Mass Market
High Low Low ~12% 4 - 6%
Three CY: 2035 Closures: Al 2030-35
Scenario
High Low High* - AHSS intensive not in scope Low
Four
Source: CAR Research
Real-world mass reduction might be less due to mass add-back
*High battery density is unlikely in the timeframe
2020 baseline costs used for incremental cost calculations are shown in Table 10: LOW Total Cost $/kg range (material + processing).
© CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH | 2018 30You can also read
